Library exceptions in the copyright laws of Ibero-American countries

The development of the digital setting has made it absolutely necessary to revise copyright legislation as a whole, including the exceptions that benefit libraries and similar institutions. Unfortunately, adaptation to the new technological reality is not taking place satisfactorily in most countries - the predominating trend is a refortification of copyright as opposed to user interests, and the maintenance of a certain pre-digital philosophy. In the case of Ibero-America the problem is twofold: aside from obsolescence or a lack of adaptation to the new technological setting, there are countries that have not yet included library-related exceptions in the national laws. Moreover, these happen to be developing countries, whose needs and interests do not coincide with those of the richer nations who paved the path to be followed by international treaties and copy- or copyright agreements. This study looks into the situation of exceptions to copyright to benefit libraries in the countries constituting Ibero-America, with a comparative analysis of the most significant characteristics of their national laws. It is concluded that it is crucial for these countries to take advantage of the options offered through the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996 and the results of the WIPO Development Agenda to update their legislation, in order that copyright will be respected, while at the same time making it easier for libraries to continue carrying out their social function in an adequate manner, always with the understanding of the developmental context of these countries.

Promoting economic links between the integration schemes of Latin America and the Caribbean

Includes bibliography

The Map of the Courts and the Brazilian Borders

The formation of our borders are analyzed, at first presenting the question of the demarcation line of Tordesillas and the problems that led to the abandonment of this trace to adopt a configuration thatwould deal with both the actual possession of the territory (uti possidetis) as the natural borders formed by rivers and water borders. Next, the Map of the Courts is examined, having served as the basis for the Treaty of Madrid, and it determines, actually, the current configuration of our country. An analysis is made of this cartographic document, with the aid of digital cartography, which yieldeds in the quantity of existing distortions, to modeled its trait and found out how it was built.

The story of Community preference for food security

"Préférence communautaire" is an in-built notion of the CAP since its inception with the Treaty of Rome (1957). Its’ simple objective laid down at the Stresa Conference in 1958 is to prefer community produce over imports wherever possible, while at the same time promoting agricultural exports and FDI (“vocation exportatrice de l’Europe”). Does this contrast or correlate with the notion of “food sovereignty” which originated in 1996 as a notion of small farmer self-sufficiency (Via Campesina), and which now has found its way into the official EC discourse? Recent CAP reforms indeed seem to continue banking on border protection and on the occasional export subsidy. Nonetheless, coming together with claims to mitigate climate change, “food sovereignty” à la CAP fails to acknowledge efficiency losses at home and negative spillover effects on the right to food of food exporting developing countries. This chapter asks whether new non-tariff and domestic support measures are just new wine in the old cask of fortress Europe, together with the FDI promotion instruments of the FED and others. Might the increasing dynamics and new challenges of agricultural trade and investment lead to lower market and production shares for European farms? It concludes that in the medium term the WTO Green Box has the only legal and effective tools to promote EU agriculture and food.

Planktonic foraminifera of the Mediterranean Sea

A high-resolution biochronology is presented for the Late Quaternary of the central Mediterranean. In the Late Pleistocene-Holocene successions three assemblage zones are distinguished on the basis of frequency patterns of planktic foraminifera. The age of these zones is determined by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS)14C dating. The zonal boundaries are dated at 12,700 yr B.P. (the end of Termination Ia) and 9600 yr B.P. (the start of Termination Ib), respectively. The AMS dates show that major changes in the planktic and benthic realms occurred synchronously over wide areas, although records of individual species may show important regional differences. In the studied areas, resedimentation processes revealed by anomalous successions of14C dates, play a far more important role than indicated by the sedimentological and micropaleontological data. Possibly these processes contribute to the very high accumulation rates in the glacial Zone III. Although the AMS technique has increased the accuracy of14C-measurements, admixture of older carbonate may still lead to substantial age differences between areas with different sedimentary regimes.

Pollen analysis of modern mangrove systems

Three sediment cores from the Bragança Peninsula located in the coastal region in the north-eastern portion of Pará State have been studied by pollen analysis to reconstruct Holocene environmental changes and dynamics of the mangrove ecosystem. The cores were taken from an Avicennia forest (Bosque de Avicennia (BDA)), a salt marsh area (Campo Salgado (CS)) and a Rhizophora dominated area (Furo do Chato). Pollen traps were installed in five different areas of the peninsula to study modern pollen deposition. Nine accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon dates provide time control and show that sediment deposits accumulated relatively undisturbed. Mangrove vegetation started to develop at different times at the three sites: at 5120 14C yr BP at the CS site, at 2170 14C yr BP at the BDA site and at 1440 14C yr BP at the FDC site. Since mid Holocene times, the mangroves covered even the most elevated area on the peninsula, which is today a salt marsh, suggesting somewhat higher relative sea-levels. The pollen concentration in relatively undisturbed deposits seems to be an indicator for the frequency of inundation. The tidal inundation frequency decreased, probably related to lower sea-levels, during the late Holocene around 1770 14C yr BP at BDA, around 910 14C yr BP at FDC and around 750 14C yr BP at CS. The change from a mangrove ecosystem to a salt marsh on the higher elevation, around 420 14C yr BP is probably natural and not due to an anthropogenic impact. Modern pollen rain from different mangrove types show different ratios between Rhizophora and Avicennia pollen, which can be used to reconstruct past composition of the mangrove. In spite of bioturbation and especially tidal inundation, which change the local pollen deposition within the mangrove zone, past mangrove dynamics can be reconstructed. The pollen record for BDA indicates a mixed Rhizophora/Avicennia mangrove vegetation between 2170 and 1770 14C yr BP. Later Rhizophora trees became more frequent and since ca. 200 14C yr BP Avicennia dominated in the forest.

Library of high-resolution UES echelle spectra of F, G, K and M field dwarf stars

We present a library of Utrecht echelle spectrograph (UES) observations of a sample of F, G, K and M field dwarf stars covering the spectral range from 4800 Å to 10600 Å with a resolution of 55000. These spectra include some of the spectral lines most widely used as optical and near-infrared indicators of chromospheric activity such as Hβ, Mg I b triplet, Na I D_1, D_2, He I D_3, Hα, and Ca II IRT lines, as well as a large number of photospheric lines which can also be affected by chromospheric activity. The spectra have been compiled with the aim of providing a set of standards observed at high-resolution to be used in the application of the spectral subtraction technique to obtain the active-chromosphere contribution to these lines in chromospherically active single and binary stars. This library can also be used for spectral classification purposes. A digital version with all the spectra is available via ftp and the World Wide Web (WWW) in both ASCII and FITS formats.

The European Court of Justice and process-oriented review. Research Paper in Law, 01/2012

Structuralism is a theory of U.S. constitutional adjudication according to which courts should seek to improve the decision-making process of the political branches of government so as to render it more democratic.1 In words of John Hart Ely, courts should exercise their judicial-review powers as a ‘representation-reinforcing’ mechanism.2 Structuralism advocates that courts must eliminate the elements of the political decision-making process that are at odds with the structure set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution. The advantage of this approach, U.S. scholars posit, lies in the fact that it does not require courts to second-guess the policy decisions adopted by the political branches of government. Instead, they limit themselves to enforcing the constitutional structure within which those decisions must be adopted. Of course, this theory of constitutional adjudication, like all theories, has its shortcomings. For example, detractors of structuralism argue that it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw the dividing line between ‘substantive’ and ‘structural’ matters.3 In particular, they claim that, when identifying the ‘structure’ set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution, courts necessarily base their determinations not on purely structural principles, but on a set of substantive values, evaluating concepts such as democracy, liberty and equality. 4 Without claiming that structuralism should be embraced by the ECJ as the leading theory of judicial review, the purpose of my contribution is to explore how recent case-law reveals that the ECJ has also striven to develop guiding principles which aim to improve the way in which the political institutions of the EU adopt their decisions. In those cases, the ECJ decided not to second-guess the appropriateness of the policy choices made by the EU legislator. Instead, it preferred to examine whether, in reaching an outcome, the EU political institutions had followed the procedural steps mandated by the authors of the Treaties. Stated simply, I argue that judicial deference in relation to ‘substantive outcomes’ has been counterbalanced by a strict ‘process review’. To that effect, I would like to discuss three recent rulings of the ECJ, delivered after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, where an EU policy measure was challenged indirectly, i.e. via the preliminary reference procedure, namely Vodafone, Volker und Markus Schecke and Test-Achats.5 Whilst in the former case the ECJ ruled that the questions raised by the referring court disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the challenged act, in the latter cases the challenged provisions of an EU act were declared invalid.

The autonomy of the EU legal order and the law-making activities of international organizations. Some examples regarding the Council most recent practice. Research Papers in Law 03/2012

[Introduction.] It is generally believed that while the principle of the autonomy of the EU legal order, in the sense of constitutional and institutional autonomy that is to say what concerns the autonomous decision-making of the EU, has been clearly strengthened by the most recent jurisprudence of the Court of Justice (eg. Moxplant3, Intertanko or the Kadi/Al Baraakat judgements or the Opinion 1/2009 of the CJEU etc.) as well as, in my opinion, in many aspects by the Treaty of Lisbon, it is still valid to add that the principle of a favourable approach, stemming from the Court jurisprudence, for the enhanced openness of the EU legal order to international law has remained equally important for the EU4. On the other hand, it should be also seen that in a globalized world, and following the increased role of the EU as an international actor, its indispensable and crucial role concerning the creation of world (legal) order in many policy fields ( for example let's think about the G20 issues, the global economic and financial crisis, the role of the EU in promoting and protecting human rights worldwide, the implementation of the multilateral or regional conventional law, developed in the framework the UN (e.g. in the field of agriculture or environment etc) or what concerns the Kyoto process on climate change or the conservation of marine biological resources at international level etc), it seems reasonable and justified to submit that the influence, for example, of the law-making activities of the main stakeholder international organizations in the mentioned policy-areas on the EU (especially on the development of its constantly evolving legal order) or vice-versa the influence of the EU law-making practice on these international organizations is significant, in many aspects mutually interdependent and more and more remarkable. This tendency of the 21st century doesn't mean, however, in my view, that the notion of the autonomy of the EU legal order would have been weakened by this increasing interaction between international law and EU law over the passed years. This contribution is going to demonstrate and prove these departuring points by giving some concrete examples from the most recent practice of the Council (all occuring either in the second half of 2009 or after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty), and which relate to two very important policy areas in the EU, namely the protection of human rights and the Common Fishery Policy.

The Lisbon Treaty and Spain: Background, Context and Impact. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Special Issue 1, August 2012

The year 2010 will be remembered in the European Union (EU) circles of governmental Spain as a crucial milestone regarding the role of the country in one of the most important alliances of world history. During the first semester, from January to June 2010, Spain had previously been scheduled to hold the rotating presidency as done since the times of the inception of the predecessor of the EU, the European Economic Community (EEC). Furthermore, on June 12, Spain would be ready to celebrate the 25th anniversary of its adhesion (along with Portugal) to the European integration experiment, by signing the treaty, effectively acceding to the European Community (EC) on January 1, 1986. While all of this was set to occur, the new Reform Treaty (“of Lisbon”) was set to be implemented as a substitute for the failed constitutional text floated during the first years of the new century. Moreover, these spectacular events unraveled in the middle of one of the worst economic crises of the world, with considerable impact on the evolution of the EU and, most especially, Spain. This paper will review the background, context and impact of particular novel aspects of the new treaty governing the EU and several milestones regarding the experience of Spain in the European process.

With or without you...judging politically in the field of Area of Freedom, Security and Justice? Research Papers in Law, 3/2007

From the Introduction. The study of the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) case law of the regarding the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ) is fascinating in many ways.1 First, almost the totality of the relevant case law is extremely recent, thereby marking the first ‘foundational’ steps in this field of law. This is the result of the fact that the AFSJ was set up by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and only entered into force in May 1999.2 Second, as the AFSJ is a new field of EU competence, it sets afresh all the fundamental questions – both political and legal – triggered by European integration, namely in terms of: a) distribution of powers between the Union and its member states, b) attribution of competences between the various EU Institutions, c) direct effect and supremacy of EU rules, d) scope of competence of the ECJ, and e) measure of the protection given to fundamental rights. The above questions beg for answers which should take into account both the extremely sensible fields of law upon which the AFSJ is anchored, and the EU’s highly inconvenient three-pillar institutional framework.3 Third, and as a consequence of the above, the vast majority of the ECJ’s judgments relating to the AFSJ are a) delivered by the Full Court or, at least, the Grand Chamber, b) with the intervention of great many member states and c) often obscure in content. This is due to the fact that the Court is called upon to set the foundational rules in a new field of EU law, often trying to accommodate divergent considerations, not all of which are strictly legal.4 Fourth, the case law of the Court relating to the AFSJ, touches upon a vast variety of topics which are not necessarily related to one another. This is why it is essential to limit the scope of this study. The content of, and steering for, the AFSJ were given by the Tampere European Council, in October 1999. According to the Tampere Conclusions, the AFSJ should consist of four key elements: a) a common immigration and asylum policy, b) judicial cooperation in both civil and penal matters, c) action against criminality and d) external action of the EU in all the above fields. Moreover, the AFSJ is to a large extent based on the Schengen acquis. The latter has been ‘communautarised’5 by the Treaty of Amsterdam and further ‘ventilated’ between the first and third pillars by decisions 1999/435 and 1999/436.6 Judicial cooperation in civil matters, mainly by means of international conventions (such as the Rome Convention of 1981 on the law applicable to contractual obligations) and regulations (such as (EC) 44/20017 and (EC) 1348/20008) also form part of the AFSJ. However, the relevant case law of the ECJ will not be examined in the present contribution.9 Similarly, the judgments of the Court delivered in the course of Article 226 EC proceedings against member states, will be omitted.10 Even after setting aside the above case law and notwithstanding the fact that the AFSJ only dates as far back as May 1999, the judgments of the ECJ are numerous. A simple (if not simplistic) categorisation may be between, on the one hand, judgments which concern the institutional setting of the AFSJ (para. 2) and, on the other, judgments which are related to some substantive AFSJ policy (para. 3).